I won't be reviewing Strike Back going forward, simply because it's obvious the show isn't worthy of much analysis. It is what it is: an entertaining, lively, exciting, silly action romp. I enjoyed the second hour as much as the diverting premiere, particularly because it's clearer Philip Winchester and Sullivan Stapleton have genuine rapport, and the action's nicely staged.
Given my comment last week about how cleverly the show avoided the cliché of Jimi Mistry being a villain (simply because of his Indian ethnicity), it was both amusing and disappointing to see I was wholly mistaken. His character was exposed as terrorist mastermind Latif after all! Was that an intentional double-bluff by writer Frank Spotnitz, or did the director accidentally call attention to Mistry's villainous unmasking in episode 1?
I'll be watching this ten-part series every week, and might post insubstantial reviews if anything particularly clever or memorable happens, but that's as far as my commitment will go. Too many new shows will be filling the schedule by the time Strike Back's in full swing, so it's best to bail out of weekly reviews early.
What did you make of Strike Back's second episode? Last week's review stirred up positive and negative comments from readers, but do you accept the show for what it is? Is it really any worse than series 1, as some people believe? (I can't agree with that assessment.) Are you still pining for Richard Armitage, or are his replacements already far more entertaining than the stoical John Porter ever was?
STRIKE BACK continues every Sunday at 9PM on SKY1.